Greetings all. I was wondering if anyone had heard about teh Reese Family, gun store owners who are currently held without bail for allegedly selling guns to cartels. If so, I was hoping some people had information on it and what exactly was going on, I heard bout it in passing this morning and the person said the government man was trying to close stores by accusing them of selling to cartels. I doubt this and thats why I am looking for more info

The main thrust of the government's case is that the Reeses "knew or should have known" that the guns they were selling were going directly to the Mexican cartels. Supposedly, some of the sales were to undercover officers who made it clear that was their intention with the guns.

I don't agree with the government's methods (asset forfeiture and seizure before the trial, the fact that the Reeses were denied bond entirely, etcetera), but Mr Reese sounds like a piece of work. This quote from him is in one of the court documents:

"I hope my guns go to Mexico ... I hope they use them to shoot those crooked (expletive deleted) federales in the (expletive deleted)."

So what it sounds like is the government is mishandling this case, the family was shady, and the guy I was talking to is another "hide your guns, hide your ammo" fellow. I should have known when he told me about that Hitler quote on gun control.

I should have known when he told me about that Hitler quote on gun control.

So because he told you a truth, then he's a nut? The anti-gun media campaign seems to be working, at least on you, to some extent......

Actually, there's some pretty good reason to believe that the famous "Hitler quote" is in fact bogus (see this):

Quote:

The "Hitler" Quote That Wouldn't Die: "1935 Will Go Down In History!"

"This year* will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date given (*in alternate versions, the words "This year..." are replaced by "1935..." has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been a need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect. The Nazi Weapons Law (or Waffengesetz) which further restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license was passed on March 18, 1938.

The citation usually given for this quote is a jumbled mess, and has only three major clues from which to work. The first is the date, which does not correspond (even approximately) to a date on which Hitler made a public speech, and a check of the texts of Hitler's speeches does not reveal a quotation resembling this (which is easily understandable when you realize that "Hitler" is commenting on a non-existent law). The second clue is the newspaper reference, which if translated into German resembles the title of a newspaper called Berliner Tageblatt, and a check of the issue for that date reveals that the page and column references given are to the arts and culture page! No Hitler speech appears in the pages of Berliner Tageblatt on that date, or dates close to it, because there was no such speech to report.

Finally, the citation includes a proper name "Eberhard Beckmann," which is sometimes cited as "by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann," which is an important clue itself, because it reveals that the citation was fabricated by someone who had so little knowledge of the German language that they were unaware that "Einleitung" isn't the fellow's first name! The only "Eberhard Beckmann" which has been uncovered thus far did indeed write introductions, but he was a journalist for a German broadcasting company after WWII, and he wrote several introductions to photography books, one of which was photos of the German state of Hesse (or Hessia), which may be the source of the curious phrase "Abschied vom Hessenland!" which appears in the citation. This quotation, however effective it may be as propaganda, is a fraud.

"The civil forfeiture complaint seeks forfeiture of the real property associated with New Deal, and approximately: 1,428 firearms; 1,975,262 rounds of assorted ammunition; 535 canisters of smokeless powder; 4,757 ammunition magazines; $117,823 in gold and silver coins; four vehicles registered to the New Deal; assorted body armor; 17 gun safes; approximately $11,019 from New Deal bank accounts and approximately $106,449 in cash; and one ammunition reloading bench."

Having reseached this extensively there is no evidence of the gun control quote. Hitler did not need to make a speech about it or and special laws, since gun control was already in effect. Now back on topic, I have heard that one of the Reese family members just recently got bail. I guess enough hype is starting that they are rehtinking how they come at this case. Now heres a Q, is the seller responsible for selling to shady customers, and if he did would he be opening himself up to a discrimination case?

Now heres a Q, is the seller responsible for selling to shady customers, and if he did would he be opening himself up to a discrimination case?

It depends on what you mean by "shady". If the seller truly knows (or should have known) that they were selling to a prohibited person or helping facilitate a straw purchase, then they can be in trouble, legally.

Also, a private business owner generally has the right to refuse service to anyone, UNLESS the refusal is based on the prospective buyer's race, creed, religion, national origin, etcetera. So if a seller tries to avoid legal entanglements by instituting a "No Sales to Muslims or Mexican-looking People" policy, then he'll probably get bent over in court.

...Now heres a Q, is the seller responsible for selling to shady customers, and if he did would he be opening himself up to a discrimination case?

[1] Probably not as long as he could articulate some decent reasons why he thought the deal was suspect.

[2] A discrimination case would have to start with a complaint by the buyer. If he was shady, he's not going to put himself on someone's radar or subject himself to the scrutiny that making a complaint would bring.

If by "slap on the wrist" you mean "destroy their business and career, throw them in jail w/o bail for 6 months, confiscate most of his property, and then go to trial" .... why, I think AG Holder should have both his wrists slapped.... What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.